Absolutely Profligate

Mitt Romney's spending "cuts" would expand the federal budget.

Presenting his fiscal plan in USA Today last week, Mitt Romney said he wants to "eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential." That sounds good until you realize that Romney's goal of cutting $500 billion from projected federal outlays in 2016 would, at best, leave the budget about 8 percent higher than it is now and only 11 percent lower than it would be without any attempt to restrain spending.

The implication: Mitt Romney thinks 89 percent of what the federal government does is "absolutely essential." And that's what he says when he is trying to appeal to the fiscally conservative Republicans whose votes he will need to win his party's presidential nomination. Who knows what he really thinks, assuming he has any firm convictions at all on this crucial question.

The specific cuts highlighted by Romney suggest he does not. He predictably zeroes in on the National Endowment for the Arts, a favorite target of conservatives, but he does not zero it out. Instead he recommends "deep reductions" in the NEA's funding, which was $155 million this year, or 0.004 percent of the $3.7 trillion federal budget. Likewise, he wants to cut but not eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Getting rid of these three programs, which are not "absolutely necessary" by any stretch of the imagination, would save less than $1 billion a year, about 0.02 percent of the total budget. What does it say about Romney's commitment to fiscal restraint that he can't even go that far?

Regarding foreign aid, Romney bravely takes a stand against giving taxpayer money to "countries that oppose America's interests" but does not name any. It seems safe to assume he would make only minor cuts to the foreign aid budget, which in any event accounts for just 1 percent of federal spending.

Romney wants to "eliminate subsidies for the unprofitable Amtrak," which he says would save $1.6 billion a year, and "eliminate Title X family planning programs benefiting abortion groups like Planned Parenthood," which cost about $300 million a year. The only big-ticket item on his list of illustrative cuts is ObamaCare, which he wants to repeal, thereby saving $95 billion in 2016. All together, these cuts represent less than 3 percent of federal spending in 2011 and less than 8 percent of the $1.3 trillion deficit.

Romney also wants to increase spending, saying he would "undo the Obama administration's irresponsible defense cuts." President Obama has asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to find $450 billion in savings during the next decade, which would reduce projected military spending by 6 percent, still leaving the Pentagon's budget bigger in 2021 than it is today.

Our so-called defense budget, which has nearly doubled since 2001, was $700 billion in 2011 (including spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). It accounts for more than two-fifths of the world's military spending, about 10 times our share of the world's population.

In this context, Obama's defense "cuts" are irresponsible only in the sense that they do not go nearly far enough. Any politician who insists that the U.S. continue to police the globe—maintaining alliances that have lost their reason for existing, defending wealthy countries that are perfectly capable of defending themselves, and engaging in one optional war after another—has no credibility when he promises to "eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential."

But let's assume Romney can reach his target while recklessly expanding the Pentagon's already bloated budget. Where will that get us? "I will put us on a path to a balanced budget," he said in his speech to Americans for Prosperity last week. Translation: I will never balance the budget. By contrast, the plan outlined by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), one of Romney's rivals in the race for the Republican nomination, would balance the budget by 2015.

Clearly, Paul's idea of "absolutely essential" government programs is a bit narrower than Romney's. But whose isn't?

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

59 responses to “Absolutely Profligate”

Threadjack for a moment to remind all of my fellow federal employees that they can purchase libertarian indulgences through the Combined Federal Campaign. Yes, the Reason Foundation is listed in your catalog. Even better, every donation directed at Reason through the CFC pulls money from the pool of undesignated donations. It’s like taking money directly from the poor and buying new monocles for Nick and Matt!

I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one that would vote third party if Romney gets the nomination. It’s a win win, really. If Romney wins, Obama will win the general, finally putting the last nail into the coffin of the GOP. If someone else gets the GOP nod, Romney can go home and never come out again.

I still say Obama is a better choice than Romney if it comes down to it, let Obama fuck things up for four more, then the pendulum can swing towards someone like Rand Paul or, ideally, Gary Johnson to cross the Rubicon and stave off complete collapse for a few years.

Yep, Romney is full of shit. He has no plans to cut much of anything, but is making symbolic attacks on things Republicans traditionally don’t like. It’s the most predictable, cliche list of pseudo-cuts I’ve ever seen, proving that Romney really is a principle-free mushy middle opportunist.

You dum-dums want to use the power of the agricultural city-STATE to enforce your artificial land enTITLEment schemes. These are just arbitrary restrictions on the free movements of people. Officer, am I free to gambol?

Living in Utah, the support for this guy is everywhere. Quite frankly, it’s disgusting. What with the Glenn Beck nod he got, I guess it makes sense, but still, I thought at least a couple Mormons had some semblance of constitutional pride.

This morning on campus, I saw a Romney sticker, “Vote for Aquafresh,” and a picture of him with the whitest Photoshopped smile you’ve ever seen. I just stared at it for a few minutes in fascination. I couldn’t tell if it was a joke or not. If not… wow. I mean people have actual pride in thinking someone would vote for their candidate based on that? That’s Obama campaign level stupid. There goes another chip in the faith I had in humanity…

I’m glad to hear from you. I met a girl from Boston who thought Romney was “the next Ronald Reagan,” as she put it. At least, from what I can tell, Reagan held principles. Romney’s as RINO as they come. He is a modern Nixon.